Grafik Grafik Grafik Grafik
image
Grafik Grafik Grafik Grafik Grafik

You are not logged in.

  • Login
  • REGISTER

Dear visitor, welcome to PRAD | Online Testmagazin für Monitore, TV-Geräte, Projektoren und Gadgets. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains how this page works. You must be registered before you can use all the page's features. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

Andi

Administrator

Posts: 13,229

Location: Thedinghausen

wcf.user.option.userOption46: 2 NEC PA242W im Dualbetrieb und 1 Eizo S2232WH-GY

wcf.user.option.userOption47: Samsung UE46D6510 und Samsung UE40ES6710

1

Thursday, July 12th 2007, 3:21pm

HP w2207 (Prad.de)

This is a translation from the 22 inch HP w2207 german review.

If you have any questions regarding this review to ask to our editorial staff, the best way to do this would be to kindly post them in this thread.
Andi

Bilder fügt man als Dateianhang in Beiträge ein!

Wer uns gerne in unserem Team unterstützen möchte, findet bei PRAD interessante Jobs.

Es gibt bereits eine Menge Antworten auf PRAD. Bevor eine Frage gestellt wird, sind diese Links auf alle Fälle sehr hilfreich: Boardsuche, TFT-FAQ , TV-FAQ, Lexikon, Monitor Suche, Monitorvergleich und die Kaufberatung!
  • Go to the top of the page

2

Tuesday, August 14th 2007, 2:58pm

RE: HP w2207 (Prad.de)

Thanks for a great review, but I still have some questions:

In the PRAD Samsung 226BW review, it says "Thanks to its Frame Rate Control, the Samsung 226BW can display 16.7 million colours and boasts a colour fidelity which we have already rated as very good"

About the HP TrustedReviews say "the HP utilises a 6-bit TN display panel with dithering, which artificially compensates for the lower bit rate and produces a 16.2million colour panel. Some manufacturers have got into the habit of listing this as 16.7million colours, which would indicate an 8-bit panel, but this certainly isn't the case."

Does the Samsung feature some new technology that can display more colours on a TN display without dithering?

And exactly how does the colour accuracy of the two compare?
  • Go to the top of the page

miomao

Professional

3

Tuesday, August 14th 2007, 5:21pm

I'm not in the staff but I've the answer... :D

I think they talks about the Hi-FRC dithering.
This kind of dithering can emulate 16,7M of colors Vs. 16,2M colors of old FRC dithering.

The Hi-FRC was developed by Chi Mei Optoelectronics and now is used by many other manufacturers (like Samsung).

The HP w2207 is declared 16.2M colors.
This can means that the panel use the old dithering method but...
some purchaser says it have a LG.Philips panel and all 22'' LGP panels are declared 16,7M colors.

Anyway, this is not a big issue.
The real problem of "any" current 22'' LCD is the viewing angle.
  • Go to the top of the page

4

Monday, August 20th 2007, 5:58pm

Thanks Miomao,

I had a 226BW with an 'A' panel home for testing, and the viewing angle was terrible. Both the extreme right and left edges were yellowing when viewed spot on. Right could be resolved by tilting towards it, but left remained yellow no matter what.

I also had problems with odd skin tones, and b/w photos that looked tinted.

I ended up returning it, hoping that the 226CW or HP w2207 would be a better choice. User reviews on the w2207 say its viewing angles and colours are better than the 226BW/CW.

User reviews on the colour quality of the 226CW claim that its a complete mess.
  • Go to the top of the page

miomao

Professional

5

Monday, August 27th 2007, 11:39am

It seems that also the colorimeter don't like too much 226CW.
http://www.lesnumeriques.com/duels.php?t…70&p2=1708&ph=5

In another forum a user say me that the 931CW (wide-gamut lamps too) have a CMO panel.
May be the same for the 22''?

I think the second hypothesis is that Samsung picked wide-gamut lamps that improve color gamut while worsen colors accuracy.
It would be a bit funny... :)
  • Go to the top of the page

6

Monday, August 27th 2007, 3:27pm

Ouch! That certainly confirms what users have reported about the CW.

The HP W22 (HP's previous model, the W2207 isn't listed yet) comes out really nicely against the 226BW - S panel - after it's calibrated though.
  • Go to the top of the page

genegold

Unregistered

7

Saturday, July 25th 2009, 10:13pm

Sometime in the last several months this monitor (DVI) and its HDMI sister, w2207H, were discontinued, and in the States are available only from non dealers or as reburbished models, the latter including some that are new but for contractual reasons have to be sold unbranded (the HP label removed).

I write because there is something to be noted about the June 2007 review of the w2007. It's not stated which panel the review model contained. One of the things that got me wondering was that later reviews were more enthusiastic about the w2207H, which seems to have been released in early to mid 2008. In particular, two reviews of the 2207 in PC World, one published in October 2007 (DVI) and the other (HDMI) in June 2008, reported substantially different performance scores (76 vs. 84, respectively), although they were evaluated by pretty much the same panel of judges. While sample-to-sample variation occurs, this time the likely explanation, according to my industry source, was that early panels were mostly or entirely made by Innolux, while the later ones were made by LG and Samsung. I've noticed Samsung referenced in a few of the later reviews. The upshot is that the mostly positive review by PRAD probably understates the performance quality of the later 2207s. As far as I know, both the w2207 and w2007H are the same monitor, differing only in the digital port, DVI or HDMI.
  • Go to the top of the page

Grafik
Prad.de auf Facebook
Grafik
Grafik
Prad.de auf Twitter
Grafik
Grafik
Prad.de auf Google+
Grafik
Grafik
Prad.de Videos auf YouTube ansehen
Anzeigen
© 2002 - 2014 PRAD ProAdviser GmbH & Co. KG | Alle Rechte vorbehalten! | Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung
Ausgewiesene Warenzeichen und Markennamen gehören ihren jeweiligen Eigentümern.
PRAD übernimmt keine Haftung für den Inhalt verlinkter externer Internetseiten!

Hinweis: Unsere Internetseite wird mit aktiviertem Adblocker teilweise nicht korrekt angezeigt!